Certainly the trilogy provoked the more vitriolic outbursts directed toward Sologub.5 But The Petty Demon, too, proved to be fertile ground for accusations leveled at the author. While it was generally agreed that Peredonov was the epitome of banality, stupidity, and cruelty, the crudest interpretation of the protagonist came from those critics who saw him as a self-portrait of the writer.6 Other critics disagreed and the author addresses this accusation in the preface to the second edition of the work. Most critics agreed that the existence of Peredonovs was widespread in the Russian provinces, and indeed, shortly after the appearance of the novel, the word “Peredonovism” was coined and came into general usage. The more general view however Was that there is some part of Peredonov in each one of us, that the character becomes a symbol of a universal truth, transcending his time and milieu. One of Sologub’s most perceptive critics, Ivanov-Razumnik,7 insists that one misses the whole point of the work if it is read merely as an account of provincial life. Rather, it is life in its entirety: life without aim or meaning—the philistines’ rampant banality and cruelty are everywhere. It is not Peredonov alone who represents this terrifying vision of life: the other characters in the novel are no less horrible in their spiritual make-up than Peredonov; each one is striving for his or her “inspectorship.”
The repulsive image of Peredonov as victimizer, as a thoroughly contemptible distillation of man’s vile impulses, is balanced by those who saw him as a victim. While admitting to his baseness, still Peredonov was described as suffering from a persecution mania resulting from the forces pursuing him: his cohorts, the nedotykomka, even nature. Peredonov was seen as a victim of the weakness of human cognition: he did not understand the Dionysian relationship to nature and he was blind to beauty.8 Peredonov elicited a sympathetic response because of his lonely battle with the nedotykomka: he was characterized as a new and tragic Don Quixote.9 His tragedy as also seen as that of a lonely individual who can find no place for himself either on earth or in any higher realm.10 He was seen to be vulnerable because he appeared to have no kind of armor; he was completely naked and unable to save his “I”.11 And the reader is asked to feel compassion for Peredonov who emerges as a symbol of human suffering.12
Peredonov’s elusive little beastie, the nedotykomka, inspired many different interpretations among Sologub’s contemporaries. The little grey creature was described variously as the petty demon of the title,13 as a symbol of all that is terrifying in life—”the lie which he (Peredonov) accepted as the truth; it was more indubitable and more real than the whole of reality surrounding him.”14 One critic saw it as a symbol larger than the work in which it appears: “For Sologub, ghosts and devils, the secret, hostile forces inhabiting all of nature and quietly startling the weak, frightened individual were concentrated into the one sinister figure of the Nedotykomka.”15 In the criticism Sologub’s contemporaries there are frequent comparisons made between Chekhov’s Belikov (“The Man In A Case”) and Peredonov. This prompted one critic to see in the nedotykomka “a symbol of all that the ‘man in a case’ is guarding himself against.”16
Standing in opposition to the gloomy and terrifying world of Peredonov and his nedotykomka are Sasha and Lyudmila. No other aspect of the novel seemed to call forth as many contradictory views as this “legend in the process of being created.” On the negative side we read that the episode has no valid function in the novel but was only added for its “piquant aroma.”17 Another critic agrees that the story is in no way connected with Peredonov’s history and that while Sasha and Lyudmila may remain innocent, “this boundless perversion is all the more depraved.”18 He asserts that Lyudmila fits very nicely into the banality surrounding her and that Sasha is nothing more than a little Peredonov.19
Alexander Blok, a great admirer of Sologub’s, was most lavish in his praise for the Sasha-Lyudmila episode. He read it as “… a bright spot, a subtle thread, a fragrant aura,” and he praises Sologub for his originality in discovering “a wellspring of unfathomable purity and charm …” 20 Blok wrote about the poetic nature of the story and was joined by another critic who praised Sologub’s “tender and pure tones” in writing about this “impetuous passion of youth.” He adds that the episode could “exist independently as a beautiful poem of young earthly love.” 21
Ivanov-Razumnik22 states the obvious: that the relationship is an escape from Peredonovism. Beauty, and in particular the beauty of the human body can overcome the Peredonovism in life. The philistines know but two extremes in their relationship to the human body: either unconcealed debauchery or hypocritical modesty. But Sologub wants to transform the gloomy, grey meaningless life into a cult of the body, a pure esthetic delight, and he does this with the Sasha-Lyudmila story. He constantly suggests that the reader compare the relationship of those two with Peredonov and his associates who defile beauty and in particular, the beauty of the body (as exemplified by Peredonov with Varvara, Grushina at the masquerade and the authorial interjections regarding their actions). The attempt to avoid Peredonovism through a cult of beauty of the body turned out to be full of impossibilities and contradictions, notes the critic. So Sologub’s concept of beauty broadened to include nature, the spirit and fantasy. And through the creative force of his “I,” Sologub takes a piece of life and transforms it into worlds of fantasy from his imagination.
Scattered throughout this early criticism are comparisons between Sologub and his nineteenth-century predecessors. The most frequently mentioned names are Gogol, Dostoevsky and Chekhov. The Petty Demon is often viewed as a continuation of the Gogolian preoccupation with the banality, backwardness and madness of provincial life and of course, Dead Souls was the obvious novel of Gogol’s to compare with The Petty Demon. More technical parallels were noted between the two authors’ works: their use of repetitions, the preponderance of negatives and the predominantly “gloomy” vocabulary which pervades their works?’23 V. Botsyanovsky suggests that both Gogol and Sologub have an apparatus to enlarge each living thing into caricature. He does not mean to accuse them of exaggeration, but rather, he explains that it is as if each writer had a microscope in his brain. They put under it an imperceptible piece of human vileness and then it becomes visible to everyone.24
Again, the stifling atmosphere of the provinces, the banality, a mood of pessimism, the trivialities in which people are involved were the grounds for comparing Chekhov and Sologub. More specifically, Belikov, “The Man In A Case,” was compared to Peredonov, with conclusions regarding their similarities and their differences.
With Dostoevsky, the comparisons swing from confusing (suggesting that Sasha and Lyudmila are as necessary in The Petty Demon as Kolia Krassotkin and Iliusha are to The Brothers Karamazov!)25 to the vague (the gloom to doom atmosphere; the “Karamazov questions” about the meaning of life and innocent suffering). Character parallels were mentioned: the Underground Man and Smerdyakov with Peredonov for example.26 Other critics emphasized the presence of the diabolical in both writers’ works: this observation has the potential for a specific and rewarding comparison.27 But as is often the case in this early criticism, a provocative idea such as This one is presented, but it is seldom developed satisfactorily.
After 1923, when Sologub was attacked as “anti-revolutionary” and “outmoded,” he was unable to publish. Two reprints of The Petty Demon were issued in the Soviet Union in limited editions 28 Orest Tsekhnovitser, in his Introduction to the 1933 edition, rails that Sologub, who came from such a modest background and suffered in the provinces, should have been ripe for revolution. Instead, Sologub is accused of having no social perspective, no belief in tomorrow. And his lack of well-defined political positions cheapens the novel. The work is praised though for its realistic portrayal of life in pre-Revolutionary Russia.
Soviet criticism continued to emphasize the realism of the novel. In 1969 an article29 was published with documentation to prove that characters and events were drawn from real life experiences of Sologub when he taught in the provincial
town of Velikie Luki. Included was a letter from an individual who had taught with Sologub as well as an unpublished interview with Sologub, who admits that he used as his model for Peredonov, a certain Strakhov, a teacher even more insane than Peredonov.30
A refreshingly sympathetic, sensitive and more sophisticated assessment of Sologub by a Soviet is found in the introduction to a collection of Sologub’s poetry published in 1975.31’ In it, I. Dikman praises The Petty Demon as the author’s greatest achievement in prose as well as being one of the most successful Russian novels at the beginning of the century. While pointing out that Sologub testified to the veracity of character and milieu, the author is applauded for his portrayal of the philistine psychology and for his creation of the nedotykomka, which is interpreted as a symbol of the banality and vileness of that philistinism.
In this introduction, the universal, aspect of the novel is alluded to by the observation that readers and critics Saw the work as a confirmation of the absurdity, the senselessness and incomprehensibility of life as well as the baseness and vileness of man in general.) Dikman dismisses the Sasha-Lyudmila story as having no place in the novel, no realistically portrayed perspective.
There has been one book-length study of The Petty Demon, published in this country by Galina Selegen.32 In her monograph, which is written in Russian, Selegen introduces the reader to the history of the symbolist novel in France and Russia, she discusses Sologub’s philosophy and esthetics, then she turns to the novel itself, focusing on structure, methods of characterization and various aspects of the author’s language. She writes about Peredonov as the embodiment of banality as well as its ‘victim, the nedotykomka as that banality having taken form in his imagination. She points out that unlike other social novels, we do not have a biography of Peredonov, no explanation of social forces forming his character. She notes that there is no plot in the traditional sense, but rather that the novel is a series of the hero’s spiritual experiences which reveal his character. She agrees with those who feel that the Sasha-Lyudmila plot stands outside of the artistic plan of the work.
The body of critical material about The Petty Demon in English was quite limited until fairly recently. John Cournos, an early translator of Sologub, published one of the first studies of the writer in English.33 It has a certain antiquated charm; his comments on The Petty Demon are sensible if not always original. He sides with the critics who see Peredonovism as a universal human condition; he gives Peredonov credit for recognizing that the nedotykomka is an evil spirit and for fighting against it. He finds the Sasha-Lyudmila episode to be a relief from the novel’s tragedy: “But the infatuation of a young woman for a young boy may in itself seem strange to the English reader.” (!)34 As for the “Karamazovian question” (Ivan’s questioning the meaning of life), Cournos believes that Chekhov consoled himself with the hope of progress; Sologub finally realized that beauty and imagination might offer an escape for the individual, but not for all of humanity—so Sologub’s great hero became Death.
Brief mention of The Petty Demon is found in various histories of Russian literature, the best probably that by D.S. Mirsky who called the novel “the most perfect Russian novel since the death of Dostoevsky.”35 Renato Poggioli36 devotes some attention to the work with perceptive, if concise observations, and Robert Jackson’s study37 is also to be recommended. The articles reprinted here, and the suggested readings following them, represent the best criticism on The Petty Demon to appear in recent years in English. While ultimately the work must speak for itself, these thought-provoking analyses by contemporary scholars should enrich the reading of The Petty Demon.
NOTES
1. An observation by Andrew Field in the Introduction to his Master’s Thesis, “Sologub’s Prose: A Critical Analysis Of Its Symbolism And Structure”, Columbia University, 1961 (unpublished). Field was the translator of the novel published by Random House in 1962.
2. A.N. Chebotarevskaia, “‘Tvorimoe’ Tvorchestvo,” in A.N. Chebotarevskaia (ed.), O Fedore Sologube. Kritika. Stat’i i zametki. (Petersburg, 1911). This piece eppears in the collection of critical essays about Sologub, compiled by Chebotarevskaia. It is a selection of articles covering the writer’s work in poetry, drama and prose. While a rather well-balanced assessment for the time (the articles were written between 1905–1911), it is not surprising that the general attitude is most positive. Ardis (1983) has reprinted the Russian original (ISBN 0-88233-849-8).
3. Ibid., p. 79.
4. This is particularly true in Sologub’s trilogy, The Created Legend, written between 1907 and 1913. Translated by Samuel D. Cioran and published by Ardis (Ann Arbor, 1979): Volume I, Drops of Blood; Volume II Queen Ortruda; Volume ID Smoke and Ashes. The protagonist, Trirodov, is actively pursuing a Utopian ideal, a private idea being put into practice in order to transform other individuals and thereby transform reality.
5. See the “Introduction” by Samuel Cioran in Drops of Blood pp. 11–21 for a summary of the reaction to the legend. Of particular interest is his discussion of Gorky’s estimation of Sologub.
6. Among others, A. Gornfel’d, “Nedotykomka” in O Fedore Sologube, p. 256; IU. M. Steklov, “O tvorchestve Fedora Sologuba,” Literaturnyi raspad. Kniga vtoraia (Petersburg, 1909), p. 190.
7. Ivanov-Razumnik, “Fedor Sologub” in O Fedore Sologube, pp. 7–35.
8. A. E. Redko, “Fedor Sologub v bytovykh proizvedeniiakh i v ‘tvorimykh legendakh’,” Russkoe bogatstvo, No. 3 (March 1909), p. 77.
9. Ibid., p. 75.
10. P.S. Vladimirov, “Fedor Sologub i ego roman ‘Melkii bes’,” in O Fedore Sologube, p. 315.
11. E. Anichkov, “Melkii bes,” in O Fedore Sologube, p. 220.
12. Z. Gippius, “Slezinka Peredonova,” in O Fedore Sologube, pp. 72–79.
13. Peredonov is often referred to as the petty demon too, which emphasizes the multiplicity of interpretations of the title.
14. R. Ivanov-Razumnik, O smysle zhizni. Fedor Sologub. Leonid Andreev. Lev Shestov (St. Petersburg, 1908), p. 45.
15. IU. Steklov, “O tvorchestve Fedora Sologuba,” Literaturnyi raspad, II (St. Petersburg, 1909), p. 176.
16. E. Anichkov, loc. cit. Anichkov argues that Peredonov is not at all like Chekhov’s schoolteacher.
17. Steklov, op. cit., p. 200.
18. Gornfel’d, op. cit., p. 259.
19. A. Gornfel’d, “Fedor Sologub,” Russkaia literatura xx veka 1890–1910, ed. S. Vengerov, II, kn. 4–5 (Moscow, 1915), p. 47.
20. Aleksandr Blok, Sobranie sochinenii (Moscow, 1962), V, 126.
21. A. Izmailov, “Ismel’chavshii russkii Mefistofel’ i peredonovshchina. ‘Melkii bes’—roman F. Sologuba” in O Fedore Sologube, p. 293.
22. Ivanov-Razumnik, in O Fedore Sologube, pp. 7–35.
23. A. Belyi, Masterstvo Gogolia (Moscow, 1934), reprinted by Ardis, Ann Arbor, 1983.
24. V. Botsianovskii, “O Sologube, Nedotykomka, Gogole, Groznom i pr. (Kritikopsikhologicheskii etiud)” in O Fedore Sologube, p. 146.
25. E. Anichkov, op. cit., p. 217.
26. P. S. Vladimirov, op. cit., p. 307.
27. V. Botsianovskii, op. cit., p. 171.
28. Moscow-Leningrad, 1933; Kemerovo, 1958.
29. B. IU. Ulanovskaia, “O prototipakh romana E Sologuba ‘Melkii bes’,” Russkaia literatura, XII, no. 3, (Leningrad 1969), pp. 181–184.
30. For a more detailed discussion, see G.J. Thurston, “Sologub’s Meikiy bes,” Slavonic and East European Review, LV, 1 (January, 1977), pp. 31–33.
31. Fedor Sologub, Stikhotvoreniia, ed. M.I. Dikman, 2nd ed., Bol’shaia seriia, (Leningrad, 1975).
32. Galina Selegen’, Prekhitraia via’ (Simvolizm v russkoi prose: ‘Melkii bes’ Fedora Sologuba (Washington, 1968).
33. John Cournos, “Fedor Sologub,” The Fortnightly Review, XCVIII (July-December, 1915), pp. 480–490.
34. Cournos, op. cit., p. 486.
35. D.S. Mirsky, A History of Russian Literature (New York, 1926), p. 444.
37. Robert Jackson, Dostoevsky’s Underground Man in Russian Literature (‘s Gravenhage, 1958).
Additional Articles of Interest:
Julian W. Connolly, “The Medium and the Message: Oral Utterances in Melkij Bes,” Russian Literature, IX (1981), pp. 357–368.
F.D. Reeve, “Art as Solution: Sologub’s Devil,” Modern Fiction Studies, V, No. 2, (1957), pp. 110–118.
G. Roman Shchurowsky and Pierre R. Hart, “A Somber Madness: Dionysian Excess in The Petty Demon and Professor Unrat”, Germano-Slavica, Vol. III, No. 1 (Spring, 1979), pp. 33–44.
G.J. Thurston, “Sologub’s Melkiy bes” Slavonic And East European Review, Vol. LV, No. 1 (January, 1977), pp. 30–444.
A CHRONOLOGY OF IMPORTANT DATES
MURL BARKER
1863
February 17. Fyodor Kuzmich Teternikov born in St. Petersburg
1867
Father, a freed serf, later a tailor, dies. Mother becomes a domestic in the Agapov household
1882
Graduates from a teachers’ institute; begins teaching in the provinces
1884
Publishes first poem, “The Fox and the Hedgehog” (Lisitsa i ezh) in Vesna (Springtime)
The Petty Demon Page 43
